Google, Viacom now clashing over YouTube employee records

Update: at 9:05 p.m. PDT Saturday to include Viacom's response.

Viacom wants to know which videos YouTube employees have watched and uploaded to the site, and Google is refusing to provide that information, CNET News has learned.

This dispute is the reason the two companies, and lawyers representing a group of other copyright holders suing Google, have failed to reach a final agreement on anonymizing personal information belonging to YouTube users, according to two sources close to the situation.

As part of Viacom's $1 billion copyright suit against Google's YouTube, a federal judge ordered the video-sharing site two weeks ago to disclose records, such as IP addresses and usernames. Google was also supposed to turn over records that included the viewing and uploading histories of YouTube employees, according to the sources.

YouTube's employee information could prove crucial to Viacom's case against Google, as it could go a long way to proving how much knowledge YouTube has about piracy on the site.

Since the judge issued the order, Viacom has been widely criticized for attempting to encroach on the privacy of YouTube users. The parent company of MTV and Comedy Central has always said it never wanted personally identifiable information.

"Viacom suggested the initiative to anonymize the data, and we have been prepared to accept anonymous information since day one," said a Viacom spokesman.

Critics dispute that and point out that records show the judge in the case only ordered YouTube to hand over information asked for by Viacom. As for the employee records, Google said Saturday that it isn't willing to talk about anything else until that matter of user privacy is resolved.

"Viacom and other plaintiffs never should have demanded private viewing data in the first place," a Google spokesman said in an e-mail. "They should have agreed a week ago to let us anonymize it. We are willing to discuss the disclosure of viewing activity of all the relevant parties. But the simple issue of protecting user information should be resolved now. Our users' privacy should not be held hostage to advance the plaintiffs' additional litigation interests."

According to the sources, Google and Viacom were close to reaching a deal last week about masking user data when Google backed out.

Google balked over the issue of turning over information that would include data about videos employees watched or uploaded to YouTube, according to the sources. If Chad Hurley, one of YouTube's co-founders, uploaded a copyright video or viewed them, Viacom's lawyers believe they have a right to know about it, the sources said.

Google may have a tougher time with this issue than the fight to protect user information. Companies sue each other all the time and frequently turn over computer records belonging to employees when pertinent. Often, these records reveal e-mails, memos, and other documents that can shed light on events in question.

YouTube's employee information could prove crucial to Viacom's case against Google, as it could go a long way to proving how much knowledge YouTube has about piracy on the site. If YouTube employees knew what was uploaded to the site--or posted pirated clips themselves--YouTube could lose its protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

YouTube maintains that the video-sharing site is an Internet service provider and is protected by the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision, which removes liability from ISPs for illegal acts committed by users. But the DMCA requires that ISPs not have knowledge of the illegal acts or not be able to prevent them.

YouTube has always argued that it has no way to prevent users from uploading unauthorized copies of TV shows, movies, or other copyrighted material, and adheres to the DMCA by also removing infringing videos when notified by a copyright owner.

It's safe to say that many copyright owners are skeptical of these claims. For years, rumors have circulated in the technology sector that some of YouTube employees salted the site, especially in its early days, by posting clips from popular TV shows in order to bring attention to the site. No evidence of this has ever surfaced.

Google has been accused of encouraging massive copyright violations by Viacom and by a group of copyright holders represented by the Proskauer Rose law firm. The group includes the top soccer leagues in Britain and France, and U.S. television journalist Robert Tur.

[lmasanti]

I did not follow with detail this V-G affair but it seems to me that it is following the SCO-IBM Unix affair in which SCO made a complain that IBM should prove innocent... just the inverse of common law: you are innocent up to the moment that you are proved guilty.
Am I right? Am I too far in understanding Viacom/RIAA/etc. lawyers?

[Gayle Edwards]

This kind of looks like "Viacom" is scrabbling, a bit, to continue its, unfocused, IP-lawsuit (and vicarious responsibility for the actions of others) claims.

I also notice that a totally unproven accusation (that Youtube employees, allegedly, knowingly allowed, and/or encouraged, copyright-infringement)... is actually being used to further justify an apparently, otherwise, clearly dubious-attack.

Can you say RED-HERRING..? But, you know how corporations work... once they start down a path, no matter how insanely-asinine, they will simply NEVER back-down (even if... it ends-up tearing them apart, and costing their stock-holders enormously).

[mdfrancois]

I'd like to see the reverse, that is, the uploading habits of anyone from a Viacom IP, or using a Viacom (or viacom property domain, such as comedycentral.com). Did anyone on The Daily Show, or any staffer of those shows, or any other Viacom company, ever upload something copyrighted to YouTube?

[benjaminstraight]

Relax.

[jackdaniels08]

Viacom just wants to destroy the progression and the future of the internet because they have LOST to the internet. They are old media, like newspapers, old like oldy moldy Sumner Redstone. You can't stop the new wave, the new generation, Web 2.0, 3.0 what have you. You either roll with it or it rolls right over you. Have you looked at Viacom's stock price lately. That's a reflection of where they'll continue to head which is down, down, down if they don't get with the NEW!

[jackdaniels08]

Viacom just wants to destroy the progression and the future of the internet because they have LOST to the internet. They are old media, like newspapers, old like oldy moldy Sumner Redstone. You can't stop the new wave, the new generation, Web 2.0, 3.0 what have you. You either roll with it or it rolls right over you. Have you looked at Viacom's stock price lately. That's a reflection of where they'll continue to head which is down, down, down if they don't get with the NEW!

[jackdaniels08]

Viacom just wants to dessstroy the progression and the future of the internet because they have LOST to the internet. They are old media, like newspapers, old like oldy moldy Sumner Redstone. You can't stop the new wave, the new generation, Web 2.0, 3.0 what have you. You either roll with it or it rolls right over you. Have you looked at Viacom's stock price lately. That's a reflection of where they'll continue to head which is down, down, down if they don't get with the NEW!

[jackdaniels08]

Viacom just wants to dessstroy the progression and the future of the internet because they have LOSSST to the internet. They are old media, like newspapers, old like oldy moldy Sumner Redstone. You can't stop the new wave, the new generation, Web 2.0, 3.0 what have you. You either roll with it or it rolls right over you. Have you looked at Viacom's stock price lately. That's a reflection of where they'll continue to head which is down, down, down if they don't get with the NEW!

[jackdaniels08]

Viacom will lose to the future of the internet if they don't get with the new.

[spark9991]

Chad and the team knew about SNL content being on YouTube. It's what made YouTube popular, showing copyrighted clips from comedy shows off TV. The whole YouTube thing was based on being an archive of video from all sources. Viacom, NBC Universal, Disney, Sony, Fox and others should sue YouTube/Google for every infraction. Basically YouTube is the Napster of video and should be accountable for theft of copyrighted material.

[jackdaniels08]

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the law spark9991. Read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, specifically provision DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. You sir either are ignorant or have no respect for the law.

[Astinsan]

Google should put up a fight. Protect its own. I am not just talking about its employees either. Its users are just as important.

[robvme]

If you get value from using someone else's creative works and then later make profit because of it, then you probably should have cleared it with the content owner first. Its not Viacom trying to destroy the Internet, its YouTube that has a disregard for the personal creations of other individuals and companies. If you copy software and sell it, you will be sued, if you copy dvds and sell them, you will be sued, if you download and distribute MP3s, especially if they are works from Metallica, you will be sued. If you look at the last sentence or image in any piece of media, you will see copyright invoked. Copyright is implied with any creation. We don't live in a world of free.

I don't think Google really has any problem invading privacy of individuals, they are more than happy to do it in communist china when requested in order to gain market share.

Google, being young, is going to have to hire a team of lawyers in this area going forward. They blundered as rookies when they bought YouTube without considering the liability. In the long run, it will be one of many growing pains, but don't apologize for them. They gained from the stolen fruits of others and now need to comply with the law and settle the matter before they become too distracted from their core comepetencies, which is obviously not copyright law. Learn from Microsoft, the now have some of the best anti trust lawyers that money can buy on staff full time. Goggle will mature and have to have similar protecitve measures in place.

[Penguinisto]

Dunno... this is beginning to smell less like a civil tort and more like a fishing expedition by Viacom. If Viacom has an injury to seek relief against, it should lay out just that injury, in specific detail, and prove its case. Shifting and sliding and groping for new angles when what it has already received (apparently) has given them nothing? IMHO, it's time for the judge to simply dismiss with prejudice and let Viacom eat the costs.

PS: To all of the idiots out there crying "theft!", perhaps you can enlighten us as to how exactly Viacom has been deprived of their original material. Unless someone broke into Viacom's film vaults and swiped the original tapes, it's called infringement, not theft. No, I do not condone either infringement or theft, but using bad terminology to press a point only makes you look ignorant.

/P

[jamalystic]

None of the parties involved in this saga should be exempted from blame. Ordinary users will always remain to be victim and it seems none of these big companies care much in keeping our privacy. But was the judge knowlegeable enough to have made this ruling as this piece suggested: Viacom, Google/YouTube Flap Hits Slippery Slope(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=565&doc_id=158450&F_src=flftwo)

[mectron]

Shill (AKA: people with an IQ in the single digit). Viacom is the vilain here. the traditional business model of viacom is fading (and failiing) so as other companies with long criminal record (MPAA/RIAA and all their members) they think that the only way to make money is to STEAL IT from a company with is successfull. This is not about (c) infrigments. it is about viacom bribe judge and judge give viacom illegal access to google personal data so viacom could present bribed jugde with fake proof so judge can render fake judgement to let viacom STEAL money from google.

[TV James]

YouTube isn't the Napster of video. Viacom's being forced to go after them on copyright issues, but it's not the same as allowing someone to download a free song so that they ultimately don't buy it. If I watched "Lazy Sunday" on YouTube, it was because NBC wasn't currently airing it and my friends told me to watch. That means I also hadn't seen it on SNL in the first place. But now, after watching it, maybe I'm thinking that SNL might be worth a look, that was pretty funny. I'm not not purchasing episodes of The Colber Repor because I can watch them for free on YouTube. (Not that I am, cannot stand him.)

An earlier poster is right... maybe Viacom should be going after the user records to find out how many copyrighted clips were being uploaded by its own employees. This is just like the blind eye that Warner Bros. was taking in 2000 to all the employees it had using Napster. A colleague of mine even convinced the IT department to install a second hard drive for him. Its contents? Stolen music.

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

Those of you who think copyright is sham, I have news for you. It isn't. If I write a computer program and intend to distribute it by selling it, I copyright it. If someone makes a pirated copy of it and gives it to friends and they give it to others, I have the right to sue all of them and demand they pay. That's what copyright is all about. The same if I write a book. It may be reviewed and considered good bad or indifferent, but only excerpts from it may be used. Entire chapters may not.

I suggest that all of you talking about Web 2.0 or whatever you want to call it that 'Old Media' companies get with it. Watch your steps kids. I've been inthe computer business for 40 years, have written my share of programs, paid for by the company I was writing it, and they were allowed to diseminate it since they bought it. Had they not paid me, then I would have had the basis for a lawsuit, copyright infringement, in spades.

Google is getting too big for its britches and needs to be taken to the woodshed. This lawsuit, which if anyone pays attention is by Viacom and 'Others', hopefully will do that to them. They are not too big to fail. Just ask Netscape, Excite and other browsers.

Viacom hs every riht to ask for that particular information, and Google has the same right taskor that company's. With that information in hand, a judge will be able to make a reasoned response. As long as Google decides it's too big to follow copyright law, it's fair game.

[mnovickar]

I think that Viacom just wants to cresh the progression and the future of the internet and will lose to the future of the internet if they don't get with the new.

Business news: http://www.chilipress.com/business.php